Support for WikiLeaks Evaporates as New Release of War Documents Looms

reply to post by Navieko

You know I've seen you spewing this crap on many of the wikileaks-related threads now without anything to back it up... I think it's time someone called you out on it.

You know...im tired of people who are too lazy to look things up for themselves. You're either completely helpless or you're afraid of the truth.

But since we are in a realm controlled by brainless wikileak fanboys, i guess i have no option:

He lies, and you still love him

or better yet

Let me google that for you

Wow...was that so hard?

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Snarf]

If the scoffers actually saw the need and use of sites like wikileaks before making statements that are with out foundation, they should maybe sit down and think this out.

It is a known fact that mainstream media is OWNED by the military- industrial complex and is not on air to tell you anything and if it is really bad, put a twist on things to appease the masses.
Funny thing is the ones believing this pay for the information like the sheeple and swallow it hook ,line and sinker.

Like a statement I read the other day..( I cannot recall which site but it did disgust me) " Yep we did shoot down a passenger jet by mistake and caused a bit of collateral damage. It was an old and poorly maintained jet. Unfortunately there were 100 or so people that chose to be on board".

I guess it must make people feel better about it no?
________________________________________________________

Every action demands a justification to make it palatable

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I agree. I think most people are for Wikileaks and the statement in the article "American public opinion is against him." is just plain fabricated.

It's Fox News for crying out loud, what comes from them that isn't fabricated?!

reply to post by Snarf


I agree with you Snarf on that.

I watched that video of the alleged "collateral murder" Apache footage, and saw right away how this douchebag's wording created an instant knee-jerk feeling of disgust, when I watched it without the "murder" title, I saw completely different. This guy manipulates and twists the facts and the way he presents it in such a way to create animosity and hatred when there shouldnt be any.

I dont see how releasing initial combat reports proves anything. Anyone who thinks that these reports show how "evil" our soldiers are by these reports is being completely dishonest, and shows no understanding of how these things works. Also it is an active battle zone. its war. $#!t will happen. I can only imagine what it would have been like if some shmuck leaked initial combat reports from WWII.

This guy should be brought to trial and tried as a criminal for his crimes.

reply to post by againuntodust


Support for WikiLeaks Evaporates as New Release of War Documents Looms
>>FOX NEWS

Stopped reading there. Tbh who takes Fox news seriously lol.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
The comments on the comment section are a joke

karen71251 Louisiana

Can he not be arrested and charged with treason?

what treason was he doing?

EXACTLY!

He's not an American, he's AUSTRALIAN!

Julian Assange - Wikipedia

Julian Paul Assange (pronounced /əˈsɑːnʒ/; born 1971) is an Australian internet activist and journalist best known for his involvement with Wikileaks, a whistleblower website.

So, how can the USA charge him with treason?

Treason - TheFreeDictionary

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
******SKIP******
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) violation or betrayal of the allegiance that a person owes his sovereign or his country, esp by attempting to overthrow the government; high treason

He simply can't be tried for treason in the USA!

[edit on 8/14/2010 by Keyhole]

reply to post by Snarf

Truth be told, I hadn't ever heard of that interview Assange had on The Colbert Report and will concede the point of whether or not he did in fact admit to "doctoring" the evidence to maximize impact... but by the way you constantly speak out against Wikileaks in complete and utter disgust because of that, made me believe the aforementioned "doctoring" would be a hell of a lot worse than just including the words "collateral murder" in the label of a video that seemingly depicts, to this day, exactly the definition of "collateral murder".

What do you think it was when those young children were shot to death, a long with the journalists?

The whole point of releasing/leaking footage such as that is to show the atrocities that often take place, purposefully or otherwise, in war, and that the fact that the war is a completely unjustified one makes these "collateral murders" even more outrageous... so much so, that I have absolutely no problem with the release of any information exposing the inevitable atrocities taking place in a corrupt, pointless and unjustified war -- no matter how bad it makes the "poor heroic soldiers" look.

So in any case, you find out that Assange is human after all, and does in fact hold personal views on matters such as the unjustified wars taking place in the middle east... and as most (who have any sort of integrity) would do in his situation, uses the power and information he has to help a cause he clearly see's worth fighting for.

...and that suddenly makes him and Wikileaks a thing to resent? Boy, you must REALLY hate Fox News then, huh?

Pathetic. At least Wikileaks actually use REAL data, REAL evidence, REAL facts to make their "stance", if they have one. Unfortunately one can very rarely say the same for pretty much any MSM news outlet.

The fact is, Wikileaks shows more integrity, devotion and most importantly, results to uncovering the actual truth, no matter how painful, than any other so called "journalist" or news network.

All in all it sounds to me like you just can't stand the sight of anyone who dares to shine a bad light on the wars and the pathetic, trigger happy soldiers who think they're actually fighting for our "freedom" back home.

Come on now, at least man up to it rather than hiding behind the old and petty "but they have an agenda!" excuse.

Anyone human with a soul has an "agenda" -- you can deny yours all you want -- at least Assange has the balls to be open about his. The man just earned even more respect from me. For having enough personal integrity and intelligence to see through the bullsh#t going on in the middle east -- and to have the courage to do something about it -- right in the public face of danger!

[edit on 14/8/10 by Navieko]

When Fox says you are Evil you know you are force of good, when they say vote for this guy you know to vote for the other one. When they say "they are our enemy" you know to invite them to your Sunday barbecue.

Fox can spin what ever they want. The problem for them is we know that is exactly what this is SPIN.

I watched the video of the young guy who was on the ground after the attack on the two news reporters from Reuters giving a press conference. We would not have had that if it were not for Wikileaks, and after seeing it I had to take an hour to get my head back together!

JA might behave and say things that make him look out of place, but there is no one else to replace him right now, so regardless of whether he is working both sides or not, WE NEED HIM!


[edit on 14/8/2010 by theregonnakillme]

reply to post by againuntodust

I predicted this...check the source.

Fox news? I was expecting some mainstream source to start downplaying...

Not expected and based in spinned information from a biased purveyor...I would say the same in this case if it were any other outlet...

Mainstream Media as Propaganda...Who knew...

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by Navieko

 

You know I've seen you spewing this crap on many of the wikileaks-related threads now without anything to back it up... I think it's time someone called you out on it.

You know...im tired of people who are too lazy to look things up for themselves. You're either completely helpless or you're afraid of the truth.

Alrighty, lets take a look at your first link, ...

This is the actual title, ...
Wikileak's Assange Says Iraq Footage Framed for "Maximum Impact

Please find me the part in this article where it says wikileaks lied!

They said they edited the video down to 17 minutes for impact, they also say you can watch the whole video, unedited on Wikileaks, but nowhere in this article do I see where Wikileaks is called a liar or is caught in a lie!!

And your second link, ...

Wikileaks Lied - Google

Now, take a good hard look at what all these articles are about, they are all saying the same thing, (ie, Pentagon: WikiLeaks Founder Lied About Doc Review), that Wikileaks LIED when they said they contacted the White House to see if they wanted to have a look at the documents they were about to release.

This could just as easily be the White House covering its .... butt, for NOT taking them up on their offer to review these documents before they were actually "leaked".

This is the only place in your links where it seems that Wikileake is being called a liar.

And that's probably the White House just saving face.

Oh, ... and it doesn't really seem like Obama was very upset about it anyway, ...

Obama on WikiLeaks: 'Documents Don't Reveal Any Issues that Haven't Already Informed our Public Debate'

President Barack Obama spoke publicly about the WikiLeaks incident for the first time today, expressing concern about the disclosure of tens of thousands of documents, but at the same time, downplaying the content.

“While I'm concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information from the battlefield that could potentially jeopardize individuals or operations, the fact is, these documents don't reveal any issues that haven't already informed our public debate on Afghanistan. Indeed, they point to the same challenges that led me to conduct an extensive review of our policy last fall,” Mr. Obama said.

Originally posted by Snarf
You know...im tired of people who are too lazy to look things up for themselves. You're either completely helpless or you're afraid of the truth.

Or they just couldn't find all these lies you are talking about, even in the links that you posted!

If somehow I missed all the lies in your links, please feel free to point them out to me.

[edit on 8/14/2010 by Keyhole]

What gets me about the whole "doctoring" thing is the fact that Assange himself has admitted that he was disappointed not many people watched and focused on the main length video that he put out along side Collateral Murder, and an event that happens in the "long" version that he thinks was even worse than the van shooting. I am referring to the incident in which the Apache sees a gunmen enter a building and uses hellfire missile to destroy the house, only to later find out there were families living inside the house.

Wikileaks and Julian Paul Assange: The New Yorker

At first, the media’s response hewed to Assange’s interpretation, but, in the ensuing days, as more commentators weighed in and the military offered its view, Assange grew frustrated. Much of the coverage focussed not on the Hellfire attack or the van but on the killing of the journalists and on how a soldier might reasonably mistake a camera for an RPG. On Twitter, Assange accused Gates of being “a liar,” and beseeched members of the media to “stop spinning.” Read more www.newyorker.com...

[edit on 14-8-2010 by bigbomb456]

reply to post by bigbomb456


That's the problem of using "redacted versions", something must be left out.

That's also the reason I ignore those versions when I know that I can see the original.

The sheer hypocrisy of those who shrug off all these 'revelations' with a simple, casual 'It's war, crap happens' is amazing

On the one hand they say that to justify all the 'collateral damage' ... then when the people involved in letting us know about all these 'accidents' (Wikileaks) in the process accidentally release the names of a few informants, they throw their arms in the air and scream in horror. They then proceed to admonish Wikileaks and all whistle-blowers as careless and irresponsible, and accuse them of being responsible for people dying

HELLO!!!!! ...

Apparently in their universe (and the US governments) 100s, probably 1000s of innocents killed = Collateral Damage = It's War, Crap Happens.

A Few informants (possibly) compromised by Wikileaks informing the world about the scale of 'Collateral Damage' = OMG, you evil demons, how could you?

Does anyone else see this hypocrisy?

If they keep at it we may actually start to believe them...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The White House is against him. The Pentagon is against him. American public opinion is against him.

Fox is helping to round up the lynch mob. Lynch mobs burned people at the stake for being witches, and of course the majority are always right.

Now you understand why Julian Assange has the "Insurance File" posted out there.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by thepixelpusher]

Jeez, talk about spinning things around....


the pro-government apologists come here and falsely accuse Wikileaks' Assange of lying....

...and they do this to defend their Governments lies in connection with the slaughter of Afghani's and the cover-ups thereafter!!

Since when is calling film footage "Collateral Murder" lying, particularly when the civilians and journalists in question were in fact, murdered, and are , sadly, only regarded as "collateral damage", using US Military parlance....??

Sorry snarf and Gen.....your telling Porkies.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by benoni]

[edit on 15-8-2010 by benoni]

reply to post by Keyhole


To answer your question, i pretend to speak as Assange and I paraphrase

"We edited to video to show the parts that would have the maximum political impact"

No where in there does it say "We edited the video to fit time requirements, and told nothing but the truth"

Even when Colbert presses him in that interview, Assange gives in by saying "yes, i lied to get my agenda through"

to which Colbert, in his classic sarcastic mannerism, replies "Now THATS journalism *I* can get behind"



But, there is no convincing someone who does not want to be convinced.

Its just like most everything else on this planet: People are being lied to and blindly follow their calling.

Only in this case, the guy who's leading the organization is telling you' he's lying. And you still willingly give in. Says everything I need to know.



I will admit that the soldiers should not have been taking thrill in killing those people. I will admit that it was a hard video to watch.

But ill also admit that it was presented as a political tool, edited with a touch of bull # added to it, and presented, on a silver platter, to a group of people who will believe anything negative about their government, regardless of proof or possibility.

And you cleaned your plates of it, and asked for more.

reply to post by Snarf


I wonder if the Apache gunner had the little HUD icons for children pop up when he was targeting the van. Did it also zoom in real close to see the kids? No one here has yet answered me that question and I wonder why. Did the gunners have little icons pop up showing which guy is the alleged reporter? Now does this look like a camera to any one?



Even in the opening video you can see physically at least three Aks and possibily an RPG. i've never seen cameras looking like AKs and RPGs.

What so many people forget here is that hidesight is 20/20. Its SO easy to go, OH! the murdered children on purpose and they laughed about it. No, nothing like that happened. I heard no mention of children by either pilot, gunner, or any observers. I saw a legit attack on legit targets. I've never seen someone shoulder a "telephoto lens" like an RPG before, and I've never seen someone carry a camera like an AK-47.

reply to post by Snarf


So Assange says the word political, big deal. If your argument is that he said his videos are political, so he has an agenda and you won't listen to him, that's weak. If you mention war or troops and their actions, it is political. The definition defines it as such: POLITICAL - of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy.

Kinda sounds like you didn't know what the word political meant.



[edit on 15-8-2010 by againuntodust]

Yes, this is worrying:

1. Classified information gets released, with or without government approval. It doesn't matter.

2. Regardless of how sensitive the info actually is, the potential for bad results is dramatically over-stated with much hand wringing by public officials and media in bed with them. The public is convinced this has been a very bad thing that must be prevented from ever happening again.

3. The government passes laws restricting and restructuring the internet so that only "approved" messages are allowed, for the "safety of the public".

4. The sheep are happy.

Reality? or fiction?